KeywordsTURP · Geriatric · Outcome · Geriatric assessment · Benign prostatic hyperplasia · Lower urinary tract symptoms Abstract Purpose: To determine the impact of a simple preoperative geriatric assessment on the outcome in older patients with recurrent urinary retention who underwent desobstructive surgery. Patients and Methods: Patients aged 75 years or older with recurrent urinary retention referred for TURP entered this prospective, multicentre study. Several demographic, intra-and postoperative parameters were assessed. Preoperative geriatric assessment was performed by the 7-item Canadian Study of Health and Ageing (CSHA) frailty scale (1: very fit, 7: severely frail; completion takes less than a minute). The main outcome parameters were successful voiding rates at discharge and 3 months postoperatively. Results: A total of 54 patients were recruited; 42 (77.8%) patients had a CSHA index of 1-3 and were considered as "fit", the remaining 12 (22.2%) formed the "frail" group (CSHA index 4-7). Age was identical in both cohorts (79.5 ± 3.7 vs. 79.7 ± 3.3 years); differences were demonstrable for the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (p = 0.001), the number of daily medications (> 4: 32 vs. 75%, p = 0.02), falls within the past 6 months (12 vs. 33%), and the necessity of home/nursing care (5 vs. 42%, p = 0.004). Intra-and perioperative complications, duration of postoperative catheterization, and length of hospitalization were identical in both cohorts. The success rate at discharge was 80.6% in fit and 75.0% in frail patients; the respective values at 3 months were 95.2 and 83.3%. Conclusions: A simple 1-min geriatric assessment tool can predict -to a certain extentthe outcome of desobstructive surgery in older patients with recurrent urinary retention. Fit patients achieve an excellent outcome while frail patients might benefit from a more indepth urodynamic/geriatric evaluation.

PurposeThe primary objective was to assess whether transrectal ultrasound (TRUS)-guided prostate biopsy in the left lateral decubitus (LLD) position differed from the procedure in the lithotomy position regarding patients' pain perception. The secondary objective was to assess the analgesic effect of intrarectal 2% lidocaine gel in this setting.Materials and MethodsThis single-center, open-label trial enrolled 148 men undergoing prostate biopsy. Then men were randomly assigned to group 1 (LLD position, no lidocaine, n=50, "test"), group 2 (lithotomy position+lidocaine, n=50, "positive control"), and group 3 (lithotomy position, no lidocaine, n=48, "negative control"). Twelve-core samples were taken in each biopsy set. Pain was assessed by using a 10-point visual analogue scale (VAS).ResultsAcross the groups, patients were comparable regarding age, prostate-specific antigen levels, prostate volume, digital rectal examination findings, and pathohistological diagnosis. VAS scores were lower in group 1 (median, 2.95) than in group 2 (median, 4.95; p<0.001) or group 3 (median, 4.60; p<0.001). The difference between group 2 and group 3 was insignificant (p=0.268). The adjusted mean differences (with adjustment for the above covariates) were as follows: group 1 vs. group 2, -1.43 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -2.25 to -0.60; p<0.001); group 1 vs. group 3, -1.22 (95% CI: -2.04 to -0.41; p=0.001); group 2 vs. group 3, 0.20 (95% CI, -0.63 to 1.04; p=0.836); and group 1 vs. groups 2 and 3, -1.33 (95% CI, -1.92 to -0.73; p<0.001). The procedure was comparably well tolerated across the groups.ConclusionsPain perception during prostate biopsy was lower in the LLD position than in the lithotomy position. Intrarectal 2% lidocaine gel does not seem to affect pain perception.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective: To compare two 12-core transrectal ultrasound-guided prostate biopsy schemes in respect to cancer detection rates. Methods: Retrospective, single-center analysis of consecutive patients (n = 897) who underwent prostate biopsy (S1) with all 12 cores from far lateral areas (n = 269) or prostate biopsy (S2) with 6 cores from parasagittal and 6 from far lateral areas (n = 628). Results: Crude cancer detection rates with S1 and S2 were similar (39.0 and 38.9% for the first biopsy and 29.4 and 31.3% for repeated biopsies, respectively). Abnormal digital rectal exam, lower prostate volume and higher prostate-specific antigen (PSA) levels were independently associated with higher odds of cancer detection. Regarding first biopsies (n = 747), there was significant interaction between biopsy scheme and PSA (p < 0.001). Overall, the adjusted odds of cancer detection were higher with S1 (S1/S2 odds ratio = 2.54, 95% CI: 1.12-5.74), but the S1-S2 relationship was conditional on PSA: odds ratios progressively increased with increasing PSA from 0.64 (95% CI: 0.40-1.02) at PSA 5 ng/ml to 39.1 (95% CI: 2.71-566) at 75 ng/ml. Conclusion: Higher PSA levels increase the probability of cancer detection with 12-core prostate biopsies, but relative efficiency of different procedures appeared conditional on the PSA level. Data suggest that PSA levels should be considered in the choice of prostate biopsy sampling scheme.